problem-based learning and the training of secondary social … · 2017-08-17 · problem-based...

International Journal for the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning

Volume 11 | Number 2 Article 16

July 2017

Problem-Based Learning and the Training ofSecondary Social Studies Teachers: A Case Studyof Candidate Perceptions during their FieldExperienceCharles T. Wynn Sr.Kennesaw State University, [email protected]

William [email protected]

Recommended CitationWynn, Charles T. Sr. and Okie, William (2017) "Problem-Based Learning and the Training of Secondary Social Studies Teachers: ACase Study of Candidate Perceptions during their Field Experience," International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:Vol. 11: No. 2, Article 16.Available at: https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110216

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl?utm_source=digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu%2Fij-sotl%2Fvol11%2Fiss2%2F16&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages




http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol11?utm_source=digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu%2Fij-sotl%2Fvol11%2Fiss2%2F16&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol11/iss2?utm_source=digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu%2Fij-sotl%2Fvol11%2Fiss2%2F16&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol11/iss2/16?utm_source=digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu%2Fij-sotl%2Fvol11%2Fiss2%2F16&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Problem-Based Learning and the Training of Secondary Social StudiesTeachers: A Case Study of Candidate Perceptions during their FieldExperience

AbstractWe present results of a case study in which we analyzed the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) andcognitive scaffolding techniques introduced in our secondary social studies methods course on theperceptions and practices of 12 preservice teachers (PSTs) during their fall practicum and spring studentteaching. Our PSTs reported teaching 54 PBL lessons and identified factors that encouraged their use of PBL:methods course PBL experiences; improved student exam scores and writing skills, increased engagement;and improved collaborative, deliberative, and cognitive skills. Discouraging factors included the time andeffort to plan PBL lessons, coverage demands, and standardized testing. Findings suggest that PBLmethodology, supported by professorial modeling and metacognitive training, had a transformative impact onour PSTs in terms of how they perceived their relationship with their students, the student outcomes theysought to facilitate, and their operational understanding the goals of social studies education offered by theNational Council for the Social Studies.

Keywordsproblem-based learning, social studies education, postformal thinking, teacher education

Cover Page FootnoteOur study was supported by a grant from the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at KennesawState University.

Problem-Based Learning and the Training of Secondary Social Studies Teachers: A Case

Study of Candidate Perceptions during their Field Experience

Charles T. Wynn, Sr. and William Thomas Okie

Department of History and Philosophy, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA

(Received 29 September 2016; Accepted 1 March 2017)

We present results of a case study in which we analyzed the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) and cognitive

scaffolding techniques introduced in our secondary social studies methods course on the perceptions and

practices of 12 preservice teachers (PSTs) during their fall practicum and spring student teaching. Our PSTs

reported teaching 54 PBL lessons and identified factors that encouraged their use of PBL: methods course PBL

experiences; improved student exam scores and writing skills, increased engagement; and improved collaborative,

deliberative, and cognitive skills. Discouraging factors included the time and effort to plan PBL lessons, coverage

demands, and standardized testing. Findings suggest that PBL methodology, supported by professorial modeling

and metacognitive training, had a transformative impact on our PSTs in terms of how they perceived their

relationship with their students, the student outcomes they sought to facilitate, and their operational

understanding the goals of social studies education offered by the National Council for the Social Studies.

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH

RATIONALE The primary purpose of social studies, according to the

National Council for the Social Studies (2010), is to help

young people become reasoned citizen decision-makers

through the development and application of knowledge,

inquiry processes, data collection and analysis,

collaboration, decision-making, and problem-solving. From

Shirley Engle’s (1960) thesis “that quality decision making

should be the central concern of social studies instruction,”

(p. 306) to Carol Hahn’s (1994) call for student engagement

“in the processes by which public issues are resolved in a

democracy” (p. 204), social studies educators have long

advocated the use of teaching methods that prompt

students to practice and acquire these decision-

making/problem-solving skill-sets with the guidance of

skilled social studies teachers. Parker, Mueller, & Wendling

(1989) posited that problem/issue-based instruction is best

in preparing citizens to make decisions collectively for the

public good.

Despite the presence of social studies in the

secondary curriculum for more than a century in the U.S.,

however, our collective capacity to address effectively the

pressing issues of the day is questionable at best. Shawn

Rosenberg (2004) argued that most citizens lack the

reasoning ability to participate effectively in a deliberative

democracy and develop consensus-based solutions to

problems and issues. Similarly, Jan Inglis and Margaret Steele

(2005) pointed to a wide gap between the current problems

we face and the reasoning ability, emotional maturity, and

inter-societal deliberative capacity we need to effectively

address these problems. Michael Basseches (2005) noted

that when faced with complex problems and issues,

individuals often make decisions based on inadequate

intuitive or emotional thinking, loosely defined as, “if it feels

right, it is right.” The prevalence of intuitive and emotional

thinking in problem-solving and decision-making, coupled

with an inability to think through problems from multiple

perspectives, in an alarming number of both high school and

college-educated citizens, is troubling considering the

primary goal of social studies is to facilitate reasoned citizen decision-makers.

As teacher educators, we find this cognitive gap sobering, to say the least. What can we do about it as social

studies educators? Rosenberg (2004), Basseches (2005),

and Inglis and Steele (2005) suggested pedagogical devices

that guide citizens to gain the cognitive skills required for

effective deliberative and democratic participation in

addressing pressing problems and issues. These pedagogies

must explicitly confront individuals with the diverse

perspectives, multiple truths, and contradictions inherent in

complex problems and issues in order to guide them to

practice and gain these advanced cognitive skills (Basseches,

2005).

If social studies can be part of a solution in filling this

cognitive gap, it will be through a secondary social studies

curriculum rich in problem-solving/decision-making

opportunities. Such a curriculum could provide students

with guidance and scaffolding that helps them practice and

gain the advanced cognitive skills necessary to become

effective citizen decision-makers. And such a curriculum

must be implemented by teachers who have been trained

to lead students in problem-based learning. Is it possible, we

wondered, that a problem-based secondary social studies

methods course could make inroads?

Prompted by all of the above, we changed our

secondary social studies methods course at a large

southeastern university to include a more explicit focus on

guiding our preservice teachers (PSTs) to gain experience

with, and practice in, problem-based learning (PBL) and the

related cognitive dynamics. We conducted the current

study to analyze the impact of the PBL-based revisions to

our methods course as perceived by our PSTs. We selected

PBL due to the alignment between the empirical evidence

of outcomes facilitated by the method and the emphasis the

National Council for the Social Studies (2010) places on the

decision-making and problem-solving skill-sets required to

be effective, competent citizens. We posited that immersing

our students in multiple PBL experiences and guiding them

to discover this alignment and to recognize the advanced

thinking systems we guided them to practice during PBL

activities in our methods course would facilitate our PSTs’

use of PBL when they taught in the field. In summary, we developed this study to identify factors they perceived as

1

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110216

affecting their use of PBL, and to provide us with systematic

feedback on how our PBL-based course revisions influenced

our PSTs in the field.

Problem-Based Learning and the

Development of Advanced Cognitive Skills The PBL method is generally defined as focused, experiential

learning organized around the investigation of and

resolution of messy, complex, authentic problems (Torp

and Sage, 2002, Hmelo-Silver, 2004), through which

students use advanced thinking processes (Lenkauskaite &

Mazeikiene, 2012). PBL confronts students with authentic

problems as a catalyst for them to practice and gain higher

order thinking skills, self-direction, and the ability to reflect

on their own learning (Borrows, 1986; Hmelo-Silver, 2004;

Norman & Schmidt, 1992).

PBL has been found to increase content knowledge

retention and improve student ability to transfer problem-

solving processes into new and more complex

circumstances (Blumberg, 2000; Cognition and Technology

Group at Vanderbilt [CTVG], 1997; Maxwell, Bellisimo, and

Mergendoller, 2001; Mergendoller, Maxwell, and Bellisimo,

2006). A meta-analysis by Strobel and van Bareveld (2009)

indicated that PBL was significantly more effective than

traditional instruction in training competent and skilled

practitioners and in promoting long-term retention of

knowledge and skills. Hung (2013) highlighted the practical

dynamic of PBL as an instructional method that prepares

students for real-world problem-solving contexts.

Wynn, Mosholder, and Larsen (2014, 2016) found

that PBL, with an explicit metacognitive reflection

component, was more effective than traditional instruction

in promoting postformal thinking, specifically relativistic and

dialectical thinking, in a survey history course context. They recommended PBL as an ideal instructional method to

confront students with the contradictions and complexities

inherent in real-world problems and issues in order to guide

them to practice and gain postformal thinking skills, skillsets

that support the more effective deliberative and democratic

participation referenced by Rosenberg, and Inglis and Steele.

Wynn and Mosholder (2016) summarized the relativistic

and dialectical thinking dynamics involved in postformal

problem solving:

Relativistic Thinkers-

expand the lens of problem-solving beyond fixed truths

or good versus bad;

realize that context, complexities, and contradictions

are key to understanding a problem/issue and central

to developing possible resolution alternatives;

recognize that some problems/issues may not have workable solutions.

Dialectical Thinkers-

combine relativistic thinking with the recognition that

contradictions within a problem or issue are

interrelated and connected;

use inconsistencies and contradictions as catalysts for problem-solving;

seek to determine why opposing sides believe what

they believe;

use this knowledge to develop resolution alternatives;

recognize that on-going changes will challenge any stability or solution reached and will often produce a

tension-to-resolution-to-tension cycle dynamic.

PBL in Teacher Training Saye et al., (2009) posited that teachers rarely utilize

problem/issue-based instruction due to lack of models that

allow them to envision the related successful student

outcomes, and further attributed its rarity to teachers’

reliance on “craft teaching knowledge” (p. 7) – that is,

knowledge generated by practitioners in the authentic

context of classrooms – and their tendency to discount

theory-based knowledge and related instructional practices.

Saye et al., (2009) also attributed teacher resistance to using

PBL practices to “teacher dispositions; beliefs about

knowledge, teaching, and learning, and pragmatic concerns

such as class sizes, isolation from peers, and the time,

energy, and cognitive demands required by such practice

(Onosko, 1991; Rossi, 1995; Saye, 1998; Schlechty, 1993;

Windschitl, 2002)” (p. 7). Saye and Brush (1999, 2000,

2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009) have studied how to support

teachers in the implementation of PBL in secondary social

studies classrooms and found that modeling, scaffolding, and collaboration were effective in assisting teachers to utilize

PBL and to link a holistic theory-based framework to the

practice of problem-based historical inquiry. Brush and

Saye (2014) found that their integration of a PBL

instructional model (problem-based historical inquiry -

PBHI) throughout a secondary social studies teacher

education program was effective in facilitating the

recognition and incorporation of core components of PBHI

by preservice teachers in their courses and field

experiences, and additionally, enhanced their ability to

articulate their reasoning for their instructional decisions.

The results of their studies also suggested that PBL supports

should be grounded in learning experiences before they

become “fully assessable or legitimate” (Saye, et al., 2009, p.

33).

Research Questions Our primary research question was based on the work

referenced above and addressed the extent to which our

PBL modeling and scaffolding practices in a secondary social

studies methods course context influenced our PSTs’

perceptions of their use of PBL in the field. Specifically, we

addressed the extent to which our PSTs’ confidence and

proficiency in planning and implementing PBL lessons would

be strengthened by immersing them in multiple PBL

experiences, guiding them to recognize and practice the

postformal cognitive skills inherent in effective decision-

making, and encouraging them to apply the related

theoretical frameworks. We also addressed the extent to

which the teaching context in which our PSTs were placed

would affect the extent to which they utilized PBL.

Therefore, our primary research question was as follows:

What factors will affect the use and perceptions of PBL

among our social studies PSTs during their fall practicum

and spring student teaching experience?

Several related sub-questions also guided our study:

2

Problem-Based Learning and the Training of Secondary Social Studies Teachers


1. How will our PSTs perceive their level of

preparation and level of confidence in implementing

PBL during their fall practicum and spring student

teaching?

2. To what extent will our PSTs utilize PBL during

their fall practicum and spring student teaching and

what positive and negative factors will they perceive

related to their use of PBL?

3. What factors will our PSTs perceive as encouraging

or discouraging their use of PBL during their fall

practicum and spring student teaching?

RESEARCH DESIGN We chose a case study approach in order to gain an

understanding of our PSTs’ perceptions related to the above

questions in the professional contexts of their fall methods

course/practicum setting and their spring student teaching

setting. This approach allowed us to take into consideration

the lived realities and nuances experienced by our PSTs in a

way that would not be possible through a quantitative

approach (Glesne, 2006). Through a case study approach,

specifically through data source triangulation, we identified

themes and consistencies that helped explain factors that

affected our PSTs’ use and perception of PBL over time and

in different secondary social studies classrooms (Stake,

1995; Yin, 2014).

Participants and Instructional Settings Sixteen students enrolled in the required senior secondary

social studies methods block at our university in the fall of

2015. This methods block included the social studies

methods course, which met one day a week for two hours

and 45 minutes for 16 weeks and a middle school (6-8)

practicum in which students completed at least 75 hours of

teaching under the supervision of their assigned classroom

teacher (CT) and their university supervisor. Three of the

participants were in a pilot program during the spring of

2015 in which they completed a middle school field

experience, and therefore, were placed in a high school to

complete their fall practicum. Each of the sixteen students

agreed to participate in the study in which they completed

an end-of-practicum questionnaire, an end-of- practicum

focus group, an end-of-student-teaching questionnaire, and

an end-of-student-teaching focus group.

The purpose of the questionnaires and focus groups

was to determine our PSTs’ perceptions of the following: 1)

preparation and confidence to plan and teach PBL lessons;

2) the number of PBL lessons they taught; 3) the positive

aspects/outcomes and challenges of the PBL lesson(s) they

taught, 4) factors that encouraged and discouraged the use

of PBL; and 5) the extent to which they planned on using

PBL during student teaching and during their first teaching

job.

Of the 16 original participants, 13 completed the

methods course/practicum and thus completed the end-of-

practicum questionnaire and focus group session.

Participants who successfully completed the fall practicum

were placed in a high school social studies classroom for

student teaching during spring semester 2016, which lasted

16 weeks. Twelve of the 13 participants completed student

teaching and completed the end- of-student-teaching

questionnaire and the second focus group session.

Therefore, data analyzed in the current study were limited

to these 12 PSTs. Table 1 (Appendix E) shows each PST’s

pseudonym and the fall 2015 and spring 2016 field

placements and subject(s) taught.

Table 1 also shows the age at the time of the study,

gender, and race/ethnicity of each of the 12 PSTs. Eleven

were between the age of 22 and 25. While pursuing their

degrees, most of our PSTs had part-time jobs, which

extended the time needed to complete the History

Education Program requirements. Lou (age 27) returned to

school to complete his degree in history education. Five of

the participants were female and seven were male. One of

the participants was African American and one was

Hispanic. Each of the PSTs were from the same state as our

university.

Table 2 (Appendix E) includes the weekly topical

outline from our methods course syllabus. The primary

focus of the first three weeks of the course was to immerse

students in a learner-centered/problem-based learning

dynamic through which we could model PBL and PSTs could experience the method and the related learning and

cognitive outcomes. The PBL procedures used in our study

were based on Wynn’s PBL instructional model (Wynn,

2010, 2015; Wynn et al., 2014, 2016) which includes a

metacognitive reflective component.

Step 1– Introduction of the Problem:

The primary focus in Step 1 is to pique student

interest (create a need to know more), establish

“stakeholdership,” and explicitly portray the

problem/issue as multidimensional with multiple

truths.

Step 2– Initiation of PBL Events: Argumentation

and Student Inquiry: Step 2 includes a decision-

based/argumentation structure in which

students generate arguments, and work to

recognize conflicts and contradictions among

competing positions.

Step 3– Problem Solution: Students generate

solutions/decisions, deliberate to select the

most appropriate one, compare it to the actual

historical decision(s) or outcome(s), and then

evaluate its consequences.

Step 3 ends with a guided reflection on the

types of thinking strategies utilized by students,

and the successes or failures of each through

the use of a metacognitive reflection

questionnaire.

(Adapted from Wynn, et al., 2016, p. 4-5)

After the initial PBL activity, we prompted our PSTs

to analyze and compare their PBL learning experience to

the goals and purpose of social studies education as stated

in the National Curriculum Standards of Social Studies

(NCSS, 2010) and the related learning expectations found

in chapter one: “Learners build knowledge as they work to

integrate new information into existing cognitive

constructs, and engage in processes that develop their

abilities to think, reason, conduct research and attain

understanding as they encounter new concepts, principles, and issues.” (p. 10). We used this comparison to prompt

3

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16


our PSTs to identify the cognitive constructs they learned

to recognize and practice during the initial PBL activity,

specifically, postformal thinking systems (relativistic and

dialectical) and those that may not have been adequate

(concrete, formal/closed systems/absolutist thinking,

intuitive/emotional thinking). After the first PBL activity, we

continued to guide our PSTs to identify the cognitive skills

involved in each of the methods they experienced and

practiced as the course progressed, including concept

development, cooperative learning, lecture/discussion, etc.,

and two additional PBL activities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We collected data at two points during the 2015-2016

academic year. The field director of our History Education

Program (HIED) administered the End of Practicum Questionnaire in December 2015. The HIED Field Director

coordinated field placements and supervision assignments

for the methods course practicum and was not involved in

the assessment of assignments completed by participants.

The instructors of record were the researchers. All

questionnaires included a three-digit code to maintain the

anonymity of each participant. The End of Practicum Focus

Group session (Appendix B) was audio recorded after

participants completed the questionnaire and was facilitated

by our field director. The facilitator read each question on

the questionnaire to prompt our PSTs to expand on,

explain, add to, or discuss their responses on the

questionnaire. The focus session was limited to 45 minutes.

Participants completed the End of Student Teaching

Questionnaire (Appendix C) and the End of Student

Teaching Focus Group session (Appendix D) during the final

week of student teaching in April 2016. Data were

collected using the same procedures followed during the

December data collection/focus group session. We defined

problem/decision-based learning on both questionnaires as

“experiential learning (minds-on, hands-on) organized

around the investigation of and resolution of messy, real

world problems.”

We used open coding to analyze and triangulate the

data in order to identify themes among individual

participants and among the 12 PSTs as a group related to

the research questions. Responses to each prompt on the

end-of-practicum and end-of-student-teaching

questionnaires and during both focus group sessions were

coded by the emergence of themes relevant to the primary

research question and related sub-questions. We

constructed case reports on each PST to identify common

patterns and contradictions in responses to questionnaire

and focus group prompts. Each individual report was then

crosschecked with other PST reports to identify prominent

and consistent themes. These themes were then used to

provide a description of the experiences of each PST

relevant to those themes and to other PSTs’ experiences.

Our analysis of these reports provided the empirical data

from which we drew conclusions regarding the following: 1) perceptions of PSTs’ level of preparation and level of

confidence in implementing problem/decision-based

activities, 2) the extent to which they utilized PBL and their

perceptions of positive and negative factors related to the

methods implementation, and 3) factors they identified as

encouraging or discouraging their use of PBL.

RESULTS

End of Practicum Two primary themes emerged from the cross-case analysis

of the post-practicum responses regarding our PSTs’

perceptions of their readiness to teach PBL lessons. First,

they were tentatively confident about planning and

implementing PBL and attributed that confidence to their

experience with multiple PBL activities in the methods

course itself. Our PSTs ranked their level of preparation

and confidence (0 to 3) in planning and teaching a PBL lesson

as somewhat to very prepared/confident (Prepared–M =

2.33, Confident–M = 2.5). In a representative comment, Ian

explained that he knows “what PBL lessons are and how to

implement them in the classroom. My score of 2 rather

than 3 is based on lack of practice.” Jane found that some

lessons were more amenable to PBL than others were. “I

feel like it (PBL) requires a certain level of creativity that I

am still trying to master, although this class (methods) has

made it clear how to distinguish and approach PBL.” Carly

explained her tentativeness in terms of planning for the

unexpected: “I also have to prep for any tough questions

that students may have in regards to their decision-making,”

she said.

Second, as Carly’s comments suggest, our PSTs were

very anxious about how their students would respond to

PBL lessons, which may be reflective of their recognition that PBL rarely or never occurred in their practicum

classrooms. They generally framed their anxiety in terms of

“unexpected issues” that may arise during the activities and

the extent to which they had the knowledge and skill to

address effectively those issues or questions. Ten of the 11

PSTs who taught a PBL lesson indicated their level of anxiety

diminished and their confidence rose after their first PBL

teaching experience, and that gaining more practice in

implementing PBL lessons would increase their effectiveness

and confidence. The one exception was Bob, who

implemented one PBL activity that did “not go very well”

and thus damaged his confidence. He described the

challenge of planning and teaching a PBL lesson as

“intimidating for a novice teacher.” In spite of the anxiety,

11 of 12 PSTs reported that they developed and taught at

least one PBL lesson during their practicum. The total

number of PBL lessons reported by the group was 22, with

Bob and Hank teaching one; Carly, Ed, Frank, Gary, Ian, Jane,

Kathy, and Lou each teaching two; and Debra teaching four.

Anne did not teach a PBL lesson. She reported that her

cooperating teacher (6th grade World Area Studies) would

not allow her to implement a PBL activity. “My CT did not

believe the students were at a level they would have needed

to be to implement a problem-based activity successfully.”

Our PSTs’ perceptions of positive factors related to

their decision to use PBL included improved student

performance on exams, improved writing skills, significantly

higher levels of engagement, fewer classroom management

issues or disruptive students, and improved deliberative and

cognitive skills. Ian reported that with “content covered by

PBL, they get it! Their test scores are better! They can

write about their experiences. It was amazing watching

4



concrete thinkers gain the cognitive skills necessary to

effectively solve the problem.” Lou concurred: “PBL allows

you to take standards to the next level. Their essay writing

improves. They get it! My students had never been in a

PBL environment before. It was cool to see kids who

normally were not engaged become interested and

involved.” Kathy observed a marked change in student

discussion skills: “Students are ready to voice their opinions.

. . . It’s neat to see them listen to each other’s opinions and

open up their minds to consider them.”

As these comments indicate, our PSTs perceived PBL

lessons as potentially transformative, in terms of both the

learning environment and the relationship between students

and teacher. This transformative potential was starkest in

the case of Frank, who described PBL as a “game changer”:

Personal relationships changed. They saw me in

a different light after PBL. PBL laid the

foundation for their thinking differently and

their thinking about me differently. It opened

up conversations that hadn’t happened before. Before, I thought I was trapped in a box fitting

this certain thing that is a teacher. With PBL, I

have this knowledge and the ability to do things

better than I’m told they have to be done.

Other PSTs agreed. “Students were able to take a

social studies problem,” Gary explained, “and get directly

involved with the content through their own decision-

making and observations rather than rote memorization.”

Jane claimed that she “became a facilitator in the learning

process.” Bob, despite the fact that his PBL lesson went

poorly, acknowledged “students cared about the activity

overall and liked to consider competing perspectives.”

According to our PSTs, the transformative power of

PBL was particularly evident in students who normally

struggled with social studies content, who “checked out” or

were disruptive during traditional instruction. “Students

who would have been problems became my best students,”

said Ian, who continued, “PBL gave them an outlet to be

exemplary students.” Jane observed “the level of interaction

and how they worked with each other really improved.”

According to Carly, in a comment that clearly resonated

with all PSTs during the focus group session, PBL techniques

made classroom management easier. “It takes a lot of

planning to get there,” she said, “but once there you can lay

back and let the students take the reins. It helps with

classroom management and motivation. Our job becomes

easier.”

In addition, the PBL experiences in our methods

course and the alignment they saw between PBL outcomes

and the goals of social studies education encouraged our

PSTs to use PBL in their practicum classrooms. “My

experience in [the methods] class encouraged me to do

this,” said Kathy. “I saw, through PBL lessons, how engaging

and interactive PBL lessons can be. Also, PBL lessons align

so well with the purpose of social studies, promoting civic

competence.” Finally, PSTs pointed to the transformative

impact PBL lessons can have on students as an encouraging

factor. Again, Frank offered a powerful example:

One student in particular was a student who has

an internal seizure disorder, which makes her

lose up to five minutes of time at a time. Her

scores struggled until PBL. In our debate, she

shined. From then on, she was excited about

class and it made all of the difference in her

performance. On our Civil War test, she

scored a perfect score. With just one problem-

based activity, she totally changed her

perspective on history. Each time I plan a PBL,

I will think about how the activity changed her

whole attitude toward school.

Our PSTs were in full agreement on the most

discouraging or limiting factors regarding PBL

implementation during their practicum: time to implement,

time to plan, coverage demands, standardized testing, and

lack of student experience with PBL. “It took me 24 hours

to plan a PBL lesson that lasted an hour and a half,” Kathy

acknowledged. “The effort it took limited my ability to do

more.” Ian agreed: “It is highly improbable to be able to teach only these quality lessons and cover all the content

required by the end of the year.” Carly also pointed to

standardized testing as a discouraging factor: “Decision-

making sadly falls to the back burner,” she said. “If students

were to be tested on their ability to make and defend

arguments, this (PBL) would be implemented in the

classroom way more because there would be a real

emphasis on its importance.” According to Frank, lack of

familiarity exacerbated this coverage/time conundrum.

“Students are not overly familiar with PBL,” he said, “so it

takes a little more planning time to get the desired results.”

Despite these discouraging factors, each of our 12 PSTs

planned on using multiple PBL lessons during student

teaching in the spring of 2016 due to the following factors:

1) the outcomes facilitated by PBL lessons (content/concept

understanding, cognitive and deliberative skill development,

writing skill development, level of engagement, excitement,

fun, etc.), and 2) their increased level of readiness to plan

and implement PBL lessons after their practicum

experience.

End of Student Teaching We were encouraged, but not altogether surprised, to find

enthusiasm for PBL during the fall practicum, when our PSTs

were meeting with us every week and experiencing PBL

activities and the related theoretical frameworks. We

wondered, though, whether the experience in student

teaching would be markedly different, with our PSTs simply

discouraged and overwhelmed with the constraints of their

particular classroom and looming end-of-course-testing.

We did find more frustration with high-stakes testing in

responses to the spring questionnaire and focus group, but

our PSTs remained remarkably consistent in their optimism

about PBL.

The themes that emerged from the cross-case

analysis of the post-student-teaching responses regarding

their perceptions of readiness to teach PBL lessons were

similar to those identified from the practicum data. A

comparison of PSTs’ experiences with PBL during their

practicum and student teaching yielded an increase in their

5

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16


overall ranking of their level of preparedness in planning and

teaching PBL (Student Teaching M = 2.58 v. Practicum M

= 2.33) with seven of our 12 PST selecting 3-Very Prepared.

Their level of confidence to plan and teach PBL lessons

remained unchanged during student teaching (STM and PM

= 2.5). Anne scored her level of confidence a two due to

the fact that she didn’t teach a PBL lesson during her

practicum. As we noted above, Bob considered his single

experience with implementing PBL during the practicum as

“not going well,” which supported his student teaching

score of 1-Not Confident). The experiences of Anne and

Bob notwithstanding, overall the group felt quite confident

with PBL in spring 2016. As Ed put it:

I felt very prepared to teach problem/decision-

based activities during my student teaching

experience. I think that is a credit to our

professors from last semester who drilled us on

the importance of students being involved in

their learning and how these lessons can help

them get to higher levels of thinking. It also helps having done PBLs last semester so I had a

better feel for what I was doing.

Eleven of 12 PSTs reported developing and teaching

at least one or more PBL lesson during student teaching.

The total number of PBL lessons reported by the group was

32, with Frank and Hank teaching one; Ed, Gary and Lou

teaching two; Anne and Carly teaching three; Debra and

Kathy teaching four, and Ian and Jane teaching five. Bob did

not teach a PBL lesson during his student teaching

experience. He explained that his negative experience

during his practicum and his concerns over classroom

management were key factors in his decision.

The PSTs identified the following encouraging factors

associated with PBL, which were similar to those they

identified after their practicum experience: improved

student performance on exams, improved writing skills,

significantly higher levels of engagement, fewer classroom

management issues or disruptive students, and improved

deliberative and cognitive skills. Again, their comments

focused on the transformative impact of PBL, although after

student teaching they were a bit more specific in their

explanations regarding the context, process, and products

of problem-solving/decision-making. For example, Debra’s

students “had to develop a plan for dealing with

immigration” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. “My inclusion students developed higher level of

thinking which could be seen in their plan of action,” she

said. “One student even made the connection with

immigration today.” Jane’s class addressed the current

immigration crisis in Europe. “I loved seeing the authentic

solutions that students came up with based on information

they were given. At the end of the day, the solutions might

be different, but they all had the goal in mind to promote

human rights.” Our PSTs also reiterated the benefits of class

deliberation during PBL lessons. “A lot of people think social

studies is simple,” Jane said. “My students know it’s not.

They came up with their own solutions. They understand

there isn’t one truth. There are multiple truths. Their

solutions were complex. Coming to one solution as a class

was one of the most powerful results of PBL, watching these

students come together and deliberate to solve problems.”

As in the fall, our PSTs remarked on the visible

increase in engagement and motivation for their students

during student teaching. According to Debra and Anne,

students were so motivated that they neglected their other

work: “I had a student get in trouble for doing my work in

another teacher’s classroom,” said Debra. “He told the

teacher he had to be prepared for my class. We had a

debate and the work had to be done. I got reprimanded,

but I was really jumping up and down. That was so positive

for me!” Anne had a “similar experience,” with other

teachers telling her “students were preparing for my PBLs

in their class.”

The negative/discouraging factors associated with PBL

during student teaching were similar to those identified at

the end of their practicum: time, coverage, and CT pacing.

If anything, these factors loomed larger in student teaching

than they had in the practicum. Carly’s explanation, with its

clipped sentences and exclamations, mimicked the

experience of trying to use PBLs in the spring:

We have the EOCTs (End of Course Tests)

next week. We are on Standard 22. We have

to cover the Civil Rights Movement and

everything from Watergate to 2001 in four days.

The kids want to debate and do PBLs on topics

that are most relevant to them and would be so

helpful, but we have to cram this stuff down

their throats and it makes me mad. We’re

losing three weeks on stupid standardized

testing. This is the stuff they need to be

participatory citizens! It really stinks not to

have the time to do awesome problem-based

activities with this stuff because this is actually

extremely relevant to their lives today and the

world around them.

Each of our PSTs concurred with Carly’s observation

during the focus group session and shared similar

comments. Our PSTs again noted the additional planning

time associated with PBL lessons as a limiting factor, and

Debra and Bob noted that differentiating PBL lessons for

students with special needs or specific learning preferences

was often challenging.

Despite these challenges, each of our 12 PSTs stated

they planned to use multiple PBL lessons once employed as

secondary history/social studies teachers, pointing to the

following as primary reasons: higher levels of engagement,

students practicing advanced cognitive skills and

meaningfully applying content, and student outcomes that

align with goals of social studies education. Even the PSTs

with the least experience professed their intent to use PBL.

“I plan to implement PBLs as I further my teaching career,”

Anne declared. “These activities are not only fun and

engaging, but when planned and implemented properly, they

enable students to think critically about content.” Bob, who

implemented no PBL activities during student teaching, was

similarly emphatic. “Yes. I do plan to use PBLs in my

teaching career,” he said, “because I believe they encompass

the primary purpose of social studies which is encouraging the development of students’ abilities related to being

6



informed citizen decision-makers. They are also engaging,

student-centered activities that can help students to learn

the content in an authentic manner.” Frank looked forward

to escaping the limitations he felt during student teaching. “I

will have the opportunity to set the trajectory and rhythm

of my class from the onset,” he said. “I took this semester

as an opportunity to try a shotgun blast of different ideas. I

got to see what worked and what didn’t. PBL works!”

DISCUSSION We developed this study to analyze the impact the PBL-

based changes to our methods course had on our PSTs use

and perceptions of PBL during their fall practicum and spring

student teaching. We posited that an immersion of our

PSTs in multiple PBL experiences and the related cognitive

dynamics in our methods course and our explicit focus on the alignment between PBL outcomes and the goals of social

studies and the related learning dynamics as defined by

NCSS, would facilitate our students’ use of PBL when they

taught in the field and increase their confidence and

proficiency in planning and implementing PBL lessons. After

examining the results, we are encouraged by the potential

role of a PBL-oriented methods course in guiding secondary

social studies PSTs to be effective classroom teachers.

The sheer number of PBL lessons our PSTs reported

implementing during their fall practicum and spring student

teaching experience (54) was encouraging. We did not

require our PSTs to develop and teach a PBL lesson in the field

at any point during the fall methods block or student teaching.

We hoped our PSTs would make a professional decision to

utilize PBL as they saw fit based on their own experiences

as learners and the extent to which they believed that PBL

would be the best method to facilitate the desired student

outcomes as each unit was planned. End-of-practicum and

end-of-student-teaching comments indicated that our PSTs

felt prepared and relatively confident to plan and teach PBL

lessons and attributed their readiness to the experiences

they gained as learners in our methods course and as

teachers in the field.

Reports of PBL as a transformative pedagogy among

our PSTs was also encouraging. Eleven of our 12 PSTs

shared comments that explicitly identified the potential

power of PBL to improve the learning environment in

contrast to the traditional learning environment that was

common in their classrooms. They perceived the

facilitative, collaborative, and deliberative dynamics of PBL

to be positive and perpetuating factors in the use of PBL.

Perhaps Frank best framed this transformative dynamic by

referring to it as the “game changer,” or the point at which

our PSTs began defining themselves outside the parameters

of traditional social studies teaching after successfully

implementing PBL. They perceived that their students saw

them differently as well.

We were very pleased by the extent to which our

PSTs linked the successful outcomes facilitated by their PBL

activities to the primary goal of social studies education. They consistently identified the more advanced cognitive

skills practiced by their students during PBL as a positive

and encouraging factor, and connected the collaborative,

deliberative, and decision-making skills practiced by their

students to the goal of developing effective citizen decision-

makers. This was our intent as we designed our methods

course. Again, it was encouraging to see our PSTs report

on the extent to which they operationalized this connection

in the field, and the extent to which they indicated a strong

desire to continue to use PBL when they have their own

social studies classrooms.

Lastly, we were encouraged by the extent to which

our PSTs saw PBL as an adaptable strategy. As the year

progressed and they gained more experience with PBL, they

became more flexible and pragmatic in their planning and

implementation of PBL lessons. Specifically, several PSTs

learned to adapt their PBL lessons to fit within a limited time

frame. For example, Ian stated, “I learned something. You

don’t have to do these mega three day (PBL) lessons. On a

daily basis you can do these kind of things. I learned to adapt

my lessons around PBL to fit within a shorter time frame.”

In concurring, Jane termed these as “mini PBLs.”

We were not surprised by the negative or limiting

factors our PSTs identified regarding PBL. First, our PSTs

perceived the planning and preparation necessary to

implement an effective PBL lesson as laborious and challenging. However, they believed that the extra time and

effort paid off as they witnessed and assessed student

outcomes. By the end of student teaching, several PSTs

discovered PBL or PBL-like activities on-line that they

considered easily adaptable into the curriculum. For

example, Carly stated, “There are many on-line resources I

used as PBLs this semester compared to developing my own

during my practicum. It’s so much easier.” Second, our

PSTs clearly identified time limitations and the pressure to

cover content in support of EOCTs as the most significant

limiting factor, with Carly’s comment above framing the

frustration shared by the group. However, this limitation

did not prevent our PSTs from implementing PBL.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS By the end of the first day of our social studies methods

course on August 17, 2015, our PSTs were in the middle of

a simulation of the Second Continental Congress to

determine whether the American Colonies should declare

independence from Britain. They lingered in the classroom

beyond the designated time to continue preparing their

arguments and to review primary documents. They divided

preparation responsibilities and agreed to work together

outside of class to complete the task. By the end of the

second day of our methods course, our PSTs had made a

decision on American independence and were comparing

their decision to the text of the Declaration of

Independence. Our PSTs had been passionately engaged in

the PBL activity and the decision-making process, which was

our intent. During debriefing, Frank noted that the

Declaration of Independence was more meaningful after the

activity. Our PSTs clearly recognized the significance of the

learning dynamics they had just experienced and wanted to

know more.

Our research has two important implications regarding our PBL-based changes. First, it confirms the

importance of the modeling process in our secondary social

studies methods course. Our PSTs identified these PBL

learning experiences as a key factor in their decision to use

PBL in the field. They wanted their students to experience

7

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16


the same kind of motivation, engagement, and learning

outcomes they had experienced. Making that happen,

though, required a working understanding of the postformal

cognitive systems associated with advanced problem solving

and decision-making as well as the procedural dynamics of

PBL and the associated outcomes. Developing that working

knowledge among preservice teachers requires both

modeling and cognitive scaffolding (Saye and Brush, 1999,

2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009; Wynn, 2010, Wynn,

2015; Wynn, Mosholder, and Larsen, 2014, 2016). Working

knowledge in our methods course/practicum context

means that we must guide PSTs to practice, distinguish

between, and acquire these postformal thinking systems and

demonstrate these outcomes in order to facilitate them

among their students.

However, just modeling the PBL method is not

enough. The second major implication of our research is

that an understanding of the cognitive dynamics of PBL is

also critical. Our PSTs needed guidance in metacognitive

reflection in the context of PBL in order to recognize and

facilitate postformal thinking skills among their students. We guided our PSTs to inductively practice and recognize

the postformal thinking systems (relativistic and dialectical

thinking) inherent in advanced problem solving in the

context of PBL activities, and to compare their PBL

experiences and learning outcomes with the goals of social

studies education and the related learning expectations and

the relevant theoretical frameworks. Although the results

of this study cannot be generalized, they indicate that this

explicit focus was perceived as effective in facilitating the use

of PBL among our PSTs and in guiding them to focus on and

develop more advanced cognitive skills among their

students. As Ian put it, “The focus on higher level thinking

skills has almost become subconscious.”

Our results suggest that our decision to restructure

our secondary social studies methods course around PBL

and the related cognitive skillsets had a transformative

impact on our PSTs in terms of how they perceive their

relationship with their students and the student outcomes

they seek to facilitate. Their comments indicated that they

are leaving their preservice training with a perspective and

operational understanding of teaching and learning that

aligns well with that offered by NCSS, and with the current

educational reform movement that is emphasizing

sustainable advanced thinking and problem-solving skills

(Condliffe, 2016; AAC&U, 2015).

Is PBL a “game changer,” as Frank said? That might

depend on how we define the game. At the macro level, PBL

is simply good, constructivist education in the grand

progressive tradition going back more than a century. Social

studies educators have for many years argued for more

active and decision-based, real-world oriented curricula and

methods. Yet relatively few teachers, it seems, feel either

free or qualified to use PBL. However, at the micro level, at

the level of individual PSTs in their classrooms, PBL can be

transformative. Our PSTs attributed their participation in

PBL activities and their operational understanding of related

advanced thinking systems to their decision to use PBL in

future teaching contexts.

Our research suggests that a dynamic, flexible PBL

methodology, supported by professorial modeling and metacognitive training, can indeed change the game for our

PSTs. In that sense, the results of our study are very valuable

as we continue to adapt our secondary social studies

methods course and assess its effectiveness.

LIMITATIONS We designed this study to analyze the impact of our PBL-

based revisions to our social studies methods course as

perceived by our PSTs in the field. To that end, data

collected were based on self-reports of their experiences

and their students’ performance during their practicum and

student teaching. Therefore, results are not generalizable

to a broader context. Without observational data to

triangulate the PSTs’ experiences, it is difficult to draw

conclusions about the quality of implementation of PBL in

the classes. Collecting data from CTs and students would

provide a richer, more valid, and more holistic study, as would teaching observations and a content analysis of lesson

plans. We plan on working with our IRB and local school

systems to expand our research accordingly.

REFERENCES Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015).

General education maps and markers: Designing

meaningful pathways to student achievement.

Washington, DC: Author.

Basseches, M. (2005). The development of dialectical

thinking as an approach to integration. Integral Review,

1(47-63).

Blumberg, P. (2000). Evaluating the evidence that problem-

based learners are self-directed learners: A review of

literature. In D.H. Evensen & C.E. Hmelo (Eds.),

Problem-based learning: A research perspective on

learning interactions (pp. 199-226). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based

learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481-486.

Brush, T. & Sayes, J. (2014). An instructional model to

support problem-based historical inquiry: The

persistent issues in history network. The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(1),

39-50.

Condliffe, B. (2016). Project-Based Learning: A Literature

Review (Working Paper). Lucas Education Foundation,

Retrieved from

https://s3uswest1.amazonaws.com/ler/MDRC+PBL+L

iterature+Review.pdf. Accessed September 19, 2016.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV].

(1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons incurriculum,

instruction, assessment, and professional development.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Engle, S. (1960). Decision making: The heart of social studies instruction. Social Education, 24(7), 301-304, 306.

Hahn, C. L. (1994). Controversial issues in history

instruction. In Carretero, M. E., & Voss, J. F. (Eds.),

Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the

social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What

and how students learn? Educational Psychology Review,

16(3), 235-266.

Ho, D. (2000). Dialectical thinking: Neither Eastern nor

Western. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1064-1065.

8



https://s3uswest1.amazonaws.com/ler/MDRC+PBL+Literature+Review.pdf

https://s3uswest1.amazonaws.com/ler/MDRC+PBL+Literature+Review.pdf

Hung, W. (2013). Problem-based learning: A learning

environment for enhancing learning transfer. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 137, 27-

38.

Inglis, J. & Steele, M. (2005). Complexity intelligence and

cultural coaching: Navigating the gap between our

societal challenges and our capacities. Integral Review,

1, 36-46.

Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making.

Educational Technology Research & Development, 60,

341-359.

Lenkauskaite, J. & Mazeikiene, N. (2012). Challenges of

introducing problem-based learning(PBL) in higher

education: Selecting problems and using problems.

Social Research, 2(27), 78-88.

Maxwell, N. L, Bellisimo, Y, & Mergendoller, J. R. (2001).

Problem-based learning: Modifying the medical school

model for teaching high school economics. The Social

Studies, 92(2), 73-78.

Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006).

The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and

student characteristics. International Journal of Problem-

Based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.

National Council for the Social Studies (2010). National

curriculum standards for socials studies. Silver Spring,

Maryland: NCSS.

Norman, G. R. & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological

basis for problem-based learning: A review of

evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557-565.

Onosko, J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher

order thinking in social studies. Theory and Research in

Social Education, 19(4), 341-366.

Parker, W. D., Mueller, M. & Wendling, L. (1989). Critical

reasoning on civic issues. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 17(1), 7-32.

Rosenburg, S. (2004). Reconstructing the concept of

deliberative democracy. Center for the Study of

Democracy Working Papers. Retrieved from

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2rd8m486.

Rossi, J. A. (1995). In-depth study in an issue-centered social

studies classroom. Theory and Research in Social

Education, 23(2), 87-120.

Saye, J. W. (1998). Technology in the classroom: The role

of dispositions in teacher gatekeeping. Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, 13(3), 210-234.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with

social issues in a multimedia-supported learning

environment. Theory and Research in Social Education,

27(4), 472-504.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2000). Implementation and

evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case

study. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 48(3), 79-100.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2001). Scaffolding problem-centered

teaching in traditional social studies classrooms. Paper

presented at the National Council for the Social

Studies Conference, Washington, D.C.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning

about history and social issues in multimedia-

supported learning environments. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2004). Scaffolding problem-centered

teaching in traditional social studies classrooms.

Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(3), 349-378.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2007). Using technology-enhanced

learning environments to support problem-based

historical inquiry in secondary social studies

classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education,

35(2), 196-230.

Saye, J. W., Kohlmeier J., Brush, T., Mitchell, L. & Farmer, C.

(2009). Using mentoring to develop professional

teaching knowledge for problem-based historical

inquiry. Theory and Research in Social Education, 37(1),

6-41.

Schlechty, P. (1993). On the frontier of school reform with

trailblazers, pioneers, and settlers. Journal of Staff

Development, 14(4), 46-51.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand

Oaks, California: SAGE.

Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A metasynthesis of meta-analyses

comparing PBL to conventional classrooms.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1),

44-58.

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems and possibilities: Problem-

based learning for K-16 education. 2nd edition.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as

negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the

conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political

challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational

Research, 72(2), 131-175.

Wynn, C. T. (2010). Promoting cognitive growth through

problem-based instruction in a first-year learning

community. Journal of Learning Communities Research,

5(2), 5-16.

Wynn, C. T., Mosholder, R. S., & Larsen, C. A. (2014).

Measuring the effects of problem-based learning on

the development of postformal thinking skills and

engagement of first-year learning community

students. Learning Communities Research and Practice,

2(2), Article 4.

Wynn, C. T. (2015). A cognitive rationale for a problem-

based U.S. history survey. Teaching History: A Journal of

Methods, 40(1), 28-42.

Wynn, C. T. & Mosholder, R. S. (March, 2016). Facilitating

Advanced Thinking Skills through Problem-Based Learning

SoTL Commons Conference, Savannah, Georgia.

Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sotlcomm

ons/SoTL/2016/13. Accessed September 21, 2016.

Wynn, C. T., Mosholder, R. S., & Larsen, C. A. (2016).

Promoting postformal thinking in a U.S. history survey

course: A problem-based approach. Journal of College

Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 1-20.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods.

Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

9

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16


http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2rd8m486

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sotlcommons/SoTL/2016/13

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sotlcommons/SoTL/2016/13

Appendix ACode #____________

End of Practicum Questionnaire

Problem/decision-based learning is experiential learning (minds-on, hands-on) organized around the investigation of and

resolution of messy, real world problems.

This questionnaire is designed to collect information about how you perceive your level of preparation and level of

confidence in using problem/decision-based activities at this point in your year-long experience and the extent to which you have

utilized problem/decision-based activities so far and why or why not.

Read the item below and circle the response that best describes you.

1 = Not Prepared (N) 2 = Somewhat Prepared (S) 3 = Very Prepared (V)

Rank your level of preparedness to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during your practicum experience.

N S V

1 2 3

Briefly explain your ranking.


1 = Not Confident (N) 2 = Somewhat Confident (S) 3 = Very Confident (V)

Rank your level of confidence to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during your practicum experience.

N S V

1 2 3


How many problem/issue-based activities did you implement during your practicum experience? (Circle below)

0 1 2 3 4 5 more

Please list/briefly describe the activity(ies) you implemented.

What were the most positive aspects/outcomes of the problem/decision-based activity(ies) you implemented?

What were the biggest challenges you encountered as you implemented your problem/decision-based activity(ies)?

Identify and explain factors that encouraged you to use problem/decision-based activities during your practicum experience.

Identify and explain factors that discouraged or limited your use of problem/decision-based activities during your practicum

experience.

Do you plan to use problem-decision/based activities during student teaching? If so, why? If not, why not?

10



Appendix B

Focus Group Moderator Instructions

Read the following.

The purpose of this focus group is to allow you to expand on your questionnaire responses. I will read each question and

ask you to respond. The group will have five minutes to respond to each question. I will do my best to prompt responses from

each of you and facilitate group discussion as we work our way through the eight questions.

Your responses will be audio recorded per the audio recording consent form you signed in August.

**(Make sure the recorder is on and working. Have the assistant moderator take notes on participant responses. Names

should not be used.)

Questions

1. Rank your level of preparedness and level of confidence to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during

your practicum experience.



2. How many problem/issue-based activities did you implement during your practicum experience?

Briefly describe the activity(ies) you implemented.

3. What were the most positive aspects/outcomes of the problem/decision-based activity(ies) you implemented and what

were the biggest challenges you encountered as you implemented your problem/decision-based activity(ies)?

4. Identify and explain factors that encouraged you to use problem/decision-based activities during your practicum

experience.

5. Identify and explain factors that discouraged or limited your use of problem/decision-based activities during your

practicum experience.

6. Do you plan to use problem-decision/based activities during student teaching? If so, why? If not, why not?

11

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16


Appendix C Code #____________

End of Student Teaching Questionnaire

Problem/decision-based learning is experiential learning (minds-on, hands-on) organized around the investigation of and

resolution of messy, real world problems.


confidence in using problem/decision-based activities at this point in your year-long experience and the extent to which you have utilized problem/decision-based activities so far and why or why not.



Rank your level of preparedness to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during your student teaching

experience.

N S V

1 2 3




Rank your level of confidence to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during your student teaching experience.

N S V

1 2 3


How many problem/issue-based activities did you implement during your student teaching experience? (Circle below)

0 1 2 3 4 5 more

Please list/briefly describe the activity(ies) you implemented.



Identify and explain factors that encouraged you to use problem/decision-based activities during your student teaching

experience.

Identify and explain factors that discouraged or limited your use of problem/decision-based activities during your student

teaching experience.

Do you plan to use problem-decision/based activities as you continue your career as a history/ social studies teacher? If so, why? If not, why not?

12



Appendix D

Focus Group Moderator Instructions

Read the following.

The purpose of this focus group is to allow you to expand on your questionnaire responses. I will read each question and ask you to respond. The group will have five minutes to respond to each question. I will do my best to prompt responses from

each of you and facilitate group discussion as we work our way through the questions.

Your responses will be audio recorded per the audio recording consent form you signed in August.

**(Make sure the recorder is on and working. Names should not be used.)

Questions


confidence in using problem/decision-based activities at this point in your year-long experience and the extent to which you have

utilized problem/decision-based activities so far and why or why not.

Rank your level of preparedness to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during your student teaching

experience.



Rank your level of confidence to plan and teach a problem/decision-based activity during your student teaching experience.



How many problem/issue-based activities did you implement during your student teaching experience?

Please briefly describe the activity(ies) you implemented.



Identify and explain factors that encouraged you to use problem/decision-based activities during your student teaching

experience.

Identify and explain factors that discouraged or limited your use of problem/decision-based activities during your student

teaching experience.

Do you plan to use problem-decision/based activities as you continue your career as a history/social studies teacher? If so,

why? If not, why not?

13

IJ-SoTL, Vol. 11 [2017], No. 2, Art. 16


Appendix E

Table 2: Fall 2015 History/Social Studies Methods Course Topical Outline

Date Topic

8/17 Introduction to Course and Research Study, Methods and edTPA; Immersion: Lesson 1-PBL-

Decade of Unrest; Orientation Meetings (in field)

8/24 Methods/edTPA Immersion continued (Lesson 2-PBL-Patriots v Loyalists)

8/31 Purpose and Rationale of Social Studies Education; Nature and Needs of the Adolescent Learner

& The Cognitive Dynamics of Teaching and Learning History/Social Studies

9/7 LABOR DAY

9/14 Methods Continuum; Concept Development; Lesson Plan Commentary Think-Aloud

9/21 Problem-Based Education; Classroom Management Orientation

9/28 Teach Live (Meet in Education Building Rm. 128)

10/5 Decision-Making; Teaching Controversial Issues

10/12 Teaching with Primary Sources; Cooperative Learning; Lecture, Discussion, Questioning

10/19 Assessing the Social Studies Learner; edTPA Planning Session

10/26 edTPA Task 1 Workshop and Peer Review

11/2 Knowing the Adolescent Learner; Tailoring Instruction; Differentiation

11/9 Connecting Theory to Practice

11/16 edTPA Task 2 and 3 Workshop and Peer Review

11/23 FALL BREAK

11/30 Show and Tell; Artifact Day; Sendoff

12/7 Final Conferences

Note. The topical outline was copied from the course syllabus.

Table 1: Participant Demographics, Field Placements and Subjects Taught

Participant

(Pseudonym)

Demographics

(Gender, Age, Race/Ethnicity)

Fall 2015 Practicum Placement

(Middle School-MS or High School-

HS and Subjects Taught)

Subjects Taught During

Spring 2016 Student

Teaching (HS)

Anne Female, 23, White, MS, 6th World Area Studies 10th World History

Bob Male, 23, White MS, 8th State Studies 10th-12th Sociology, 10th

World History

Carly Female, 23, White MS, AC (Advanced) 7th World Area

Studies, 8th State Studies, 6th World

Area Studies

11th U.S. History

Debra Female, 25, African American MS, 8th State Studies 11th US History and 12th

Economics/

Government

Ed Male, 25, White MS, 8th State Studies 11th US History

Frank Male, 22, White MS, 8th State Studies 10th Honors and On Level

World History, 10th-12th

Psychology

Gary Male, 23, White MS, 6th and 7th World

Area Studies

9th American Government

Hank Male, 23, White MS, 7th World Area Studies 10th World History

Ian Male, 24, White MS, 7th World Area Studies, AC

(Advanced) & On Level

11th US History

Jane Female, 24, Hispanic HS, 9th World Geography and 10th

World History

9th World Geography and

10th World History

Kathy Female, 22, White HS, 10th World History 10th World History

Lou Male, 27, White HS, 10th World History 10th World History

14



problem-based learning and the training of secondary social … · 2017-08-17 · problem-based...

Documents